Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeDimensional  After chatting with Bob last week, I think he might have something else in mind. The principle of a round structure (like a tree or cylinder) being more suited to withstanding multiple external forces, compaired to the one or two dimensional forces that a two planed structure ( ie 2X4).
I just can't figure out where he is going with this, but I'm going to guess that it has something to do with the existance of object in a three dimensional world.
Or maybe I should just shut up!  |
The whole purpose of this thread is to open up.
Why didn't nature create a different structural shape for trees? Two hundred million years is a reasonable proof, even for Ekka, of successful design evolution.
And actually, your first thought is an excellent one; circles (cylinders) are very resistant to external forces that can't be predicted. Wind blowing on a flat surface has more to push against than the flow-around quality of a cylinder (circle). So, the "unsquare" tree has an advantage.
But advantages aren't purposes. They can be significant in their additional numbers, but the tree didn't likely put together the vascular cambium design because wind was a worry.
If external forces (wind, perhaps), need to have less effect, why aren't trees triangles?
Bob Wulkowicz
PS: Those of you sitting it out; try to get a little agitated. Thinking isn't all it's made out to be, but having your own personal epiphanies can be a memorable joy.